[CAUT] CAUT position announcements, CAUT Academy

[Fred Sturm]

On Aug 21, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Ed Sutton wrote:
> Jeff-
>
> I think you get my point. It's a small number
>
> Consider the recent discussion about the "antique piano market."  
> Small markets are irrational.
> The power systems of academia (including state politics, from the  
> governor on down) control what happens in the music department. It  
> isn't market driven.
>
> My personal belief is that the most powerful thing CAUT might  
> eventually accomplish would be to get an assessment of the condition  
> of the pianos and the technician included in the NASM accreditation  
> process. This evaluation should be done by a real technician, not by  
> a Doctor of Piano Performance. Schools take accreditation reviews  
> seriously because they must. It's part of the academic system they  
> use to acclaim their validity.
>
Ed Sutton

	My best guess is that there are probably 200 - 300 employee positions  
for piano techs in higher education (some less than full time). Some  
of the big schools have multiple techs.
	The NASM battle is a difficult one. I made a pretty big effort a  
couple years ago when they were doing a major review of their manual.  
I presented what I thought was a very reasonable proposal (in specific  
language to add sentences to specific clauses in their handbook) just  
to add some kind of evaluation of the condition of the pianos and the  
adequacy of their care to the picture (not trying to set a standard,  
just adding pianos to the things being looked at and reported on). I  
submitted it through the channels provided, and received not a peep in  
response.
	From much experience with NASM (my chair is heavily involved, serving  
as an evaluator), I think it unlikely that this will be a successful  
venture - they are focused on academic standards, adequacy of the  
curriculum, faculty qualifications, that kind of thing. Doesn't mean  
we shouldn't keep hammering away when the opportunity arises, but I am  
skeptical about the potential results.
	It is possible right now to have evaluation of the condition of  
pianos and of their care be part of the self-evaluation portion of the  
accreditation process. That is up to the individual music department,  
and at its initiative.
	I think that our best approach is to demonstrate quality, in a very  
broad, grass-roots way. When schools (and individual faculty) see what  
pianos can be like when they are well-serviced, they will demand it  
(faculty will demand it when they move to a different school).  When  
pianos are simply tuned and repaired, kept working on a level  
consistent with common in home usage, that's what people get used to,  
and they don't even know things can be better. The other side of this  
coin is to be able to identify technicians who have the skill to  
provide the level of service. And there our efforts to provide  
training and some sort of certification (endorsement) may give us a  
way of marketing to the higher ed audience: "You need a qualified tech  
to provide the level of service appropriate for a music department.  
How do you find one? Hire someone with a caut endorsement."
	"Employed" cauts are a small part of the picture. The real issue is  
providing adequate, comprehensive service to music departments, most  
of which contract their piano work. The norm, I believe, is contract  
per service, where a set number of tunings are done per year, and  
other work is only done when specifically authorized. This is a  
terrible model IMO. We need to find ways to design piano service  
contracts so that the comprehensive service needed is built in. I'm  
not talking about major rebuilds, rather about keeping up with  
brushing knuckles, refining regulation, filing hammers and voicing,  
key bushings, that sort of thing.

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20080821/db6c3650/attachment.html